Developing A List Of Tonearm Candidates For A SOTA Turntable


So this month i sent my SME V off to a new home, and that leaves my SOTA armless. My other table has a schroder CB-1L on it and I have run either an Ortofon Verismo or Transfiguration Proteus on it. I did put both those same cartridges on the SME on the SOTA and it always had a disappointing presentation of harmonics and texture. A monochromatic sound could be the best description I have. Time for another arm.

The SOTA armboard restricts the type of arm that can be installed. The arm types that have a VTA tower and separate pivot point take up too much real estate to fit. So fitting something like a Wheaton, Reed, or Durand does not seem possible. I wondered about elevating the arm board so its level with the top plate, but I am not sure if there is enough room for the want to pivot without removing the dust cover. It is a possibility, but I wonder how it effects the travel of the suspension. and if there are unintended consequences. I have yet to read about any SOTA owners doing this.

So I am trying to put together a list of candidates. I do know some folks appreciate the Origin Live arms, but I am not very well versed in their lineup. I have wondered about the Groovemaster arms also. I have looked at the Moerch, but its kind of a fiddly thing. The point is the table is on the sidelines at the moment because there is no arm in place. I typically shop the used market, but I can be patient and wait for the right arm to come along. The benefit of having more than one table i guess. 

Anyone else have any suggestions. Appreciate your thoughts and experiences.

neonknight

Showing 6 responses by pindac

All Tonearms of a certain design choice and purchase value, should as a tool be able to show how the tool is capable of being a mechanical interface, that is able to to enable the mechanical activities occurring within Mounted Cartridge to function in a way, that produces an accuracy of relaying on the groove modulation energy to be transferred.

Where the transferred energy, which after an early in energy paths journey, undergoes conversion, continues on with the energy transferral as an Electrical Signal undergoing further conversions in amplification to the journeys end point.

Where the Speaker Driver is receiving the Amplified Signal and is to function as another  mechanical interface, where this Speaker Function is responsible for producing an End Sound.

In most cases the End Sound produced is Very Comprehensible, Stimulating and able to be enjoyed as a means to produce a form of entertainment.

In many many cases the entertainment that is being achieved is usually enough, where the only time a change may be sought is when a tool in use that is a sacrificial part is approaching the last period of its suggested optimised usage period. 

Where the division seemingly comes from in relation to Tonearms being used as a Tool, is seemingly how the Tonearm is seen to be a mechanical match for a particular Phono Cartridge Design. Alternatively how the Tonearm is perceived by the individual through their experiencing it in use and assessment of the Tool for the designs inherent properties influence on the end sound being produced.

It seems that the individuals assessments of a particular Tonearm suggests that the Tonearm function is able to influence the Cartridges Function.

The individuals assessment again 'seems' to hinge on their perception of the Modulation Energy being produced and transferred, converted to an electrical signal, being an optimised energy as a result of the choices made for the Tonearm Cartridge Coupling, or deficient as a result of the coupling of the two tools being used in conjunction for the Mechanical Interface.  

My experience to date, is that a Tonearm can as a tool assist with creating a perception a Cartridge when coupled to it, is able to function in a way where the perception created through experiencing the pairing strongly suggests it is seemingly optimised.

My experiences to date, also have shown that if the other Mechanical Interfaces are not optimised, as per the following:

1, Platter Bearing Spindle function optimised

2,Optimised Energy Management of transferred energies through TT mount Structure and Tonearm Mount Structure. Created through using materials with inherent properties optimal for this role as well as being extremely stable as a material in the environment used.

3, Mounting Structure for above assembly to substantially reduce exposure to receiving Environmental Kinetic Energy Transfer 

My experiences to date allow for me to strongly suggest that there is a need to extend the investigation to what needs to be addressed.

Without the entirety of interfaces being addressed to substantially improve on how energies are managed, a change of Tonearm is most likely to serve in a way that can be expected from putting a Band Aid Plaster on a Gaping Wound.   

Visually all will see a fix has been attempted, but to all who see, even the most inexperienced in such matters, the idea not enough has been done will be quickly deduced.

Only the OP can decide what preparations are in place and their value, as a design to get the best from Cartridges or Tonearms used, in use or to be used.

 

 

@neonknight Today I have broken my Hiatus from the Analog Section for a New Member and now for you Origin Live Inquiry.

I have a friend in my local Audio Club, who sold on their SME 20/12 as a result on my introducing them to a New to them Experience of a Vinyl Front End.

You are aware of my Vinyl Front End and how it is assembled.

The SME 20/12 owner moved on to Origin Live Tonearms and went through the Encore fairly quickly to settle for quite some time on the Illustrious.

They were with no doubt the Illustrious was a TA well worthwhile having in use and rated it above the V12.

I have experienced the Illustrious > Sumiko Pearwood in various systems that have had the Illustrious mounted on a Idler Drive and Belt Drive TT.

Never have I perceived the Illustrious > Pearwood as being wanting in any way.

When the Ill' > P'wood was used on a ID 401 with a Compressed Bamboo Plinth, O was off the view, that was the very best 401 experience I had ever had. 

The Ill' was eventually replaced by the Conqueror, which I never received a demo'.

The owner of the Conqueror was very very pleased, and made it known there was noticeable improvements to the Pearwoods performance.

Here is the Curve Ball, a friend of the 401 > Conq' > Pearwood user, laid down a challenge to put a Vertere DG-1 TT with the DG Tonearm in use.

The 401 > Conq' are now sold, the Vertere DG-1 TT > DG Tonearm > Pearwood are now in use for quite some time, nearly a year.

The Vertere user is off the view this is the best Vinyl Front End he has had in use.

I can't Vouch for the OL TA's or the Vertere DG TA being competible to your requirements for the Sota.

Back to my Hiatus 😴      

The Link will drip one in a Thread that has a variety of Supatrac Variants produced by DIYers' taking on many cases guidance from Supatrac, who still contributes to the thread for over three years.

There is enough seen to inspire anybody to build a version of a Supatrac.

I also believe some of the design tweaks made to the Supatrac, have been inspired by the learning had from the DIYers'. This sort of shows certain DIYers' had found their path and brought further design ideas to the table that were seen to be very worthwhile implementing.

 

 

  

When the TT > Tonearm > Cart' are seemingly performing out in front of other permutations trialed or wed to. The introduction of using Platter Mats in a variety of types can then become another method to help really hone the end sound to ones preference.

I do this with a large selection of owned Mats and have found my go to mats. It s also quite a reveal how adding different spindle weights in conjunction with a Mat can enhance the qualities the Mat has shown as being able to add discernible improvements.